Social Movements and Human Rights Jackie Smith, University of Pittsburgh Adapted, pre-production version of chapter prepared for Human Rights: Politics and Practice, 3rd Edition. Forthcoming (2021), Oxford University Press. Michael E. Goodhart, Editor. Without social movements, there would be no human rights. And indeed, without human rights and the institutions that enforce them, people’s struggles for justice would have few outlets and would have trouble building support. Scholarship on the history of social movements shows the important relationship between the emergence of modern states and popular struggles to set limits to states’ authority and on the legitimate uses of state coercion. Social movement challenges to state authority shaped the very structure of today’s democracies, as activists developed political repertoires designed to expand public voice and participation in political decisionmaking. The expansion of the franchise to include groups formerly denied political voice, the reduction of barriers to political participation, and the development of laws promoting public accountability and defending rights of minorities were all won through historic and ongoing pro-democracy struggles between social movement challengers and political authorities (Markoff 2015; Tilly 1978). Not only have social movements shaped the institutions and practices that define contemporary national governments, but they have also played key roles in helping build the global architecture for human rights. Indeed, the earliest efforts to develop laws governing the behaviors of states came in response to popular outrage and resistance to slavery and the international slave trade and to the devastating impacts of wars on both soldiers and civilian populations (Charnovitz 1997, Finnemore 1996, Hunt 2007). Social movements—collections of actors, including both individuals and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) with varying degrees of formalization and resourcefulness, united in coordinated efforts to advance social change—have worked throughout history to help define what it means to be a legitimate state. Social Movements and Human Rights Scholars have long shown how social movement activism has helped institutionalize universal human rights principles into international organizations, declarations, and treaties, despite resistance from powerful states. The earliest struggles for rights were those opposing arbitrary state violence and torture and those opposing slavery and the slave trade (Hunt 2007). Human rights movements were key to making human rights a central component of the United Nations Charter at its founding in San Francisco in 1945. They also helped secure a place for civil society organizations in the ongoing work of the United Nations (Seary 1996; Gaer 1996). Over time, activists have used their access to the United Nations to strengthen the organization, for instance by expanding its work to address gender inequality and rights (Ferree and Mueller 2004; Paxton et al. 2006; Prügl and Meyer 1999) and to improve institutional mechanisms for monitoring and enforcing rights (Smith 1995; Lasso 1994; Clark 2004). For instance, health and human rights advocates have also helped advance global treaties around toxic wastes, environmental justice, landmines, and reproductive health (e.g. Newell 2005; Taylor 1993; Petchesky 2003; Clapp 1994). Other movements have worked to build global norms around the right to food and culture, achieving recent advances by securing the 2018 UN Declaration on the rights of Peasants (see Edelman and Carwil 2011). More recently, social movements have helped strengthen international laws and institutions to hold corporations accountable for their impacts on human rights (Smith 2008; Sikkink 1986). Such work fills a major lacuna in human rights law (e.g., Gibney 2008). Nelson and Dorsey (2007) describe the emergence over recent decades of a “new human rights advocacy” that emphasizes the intersections of economic and social rights with civil and political rights. These movements are bringing a more diverse array of groups together using a wide variety of tactics and operating at different levels—from local to global. What is apparent when we examine these different struggles across place and time is how global institutions develop in response to contestation between states and social movements. As Kathryn Sikkink and her colleagues have shown, social movement advocates have made use of global norms to bring pressure on governments—what she calls the “boomerang strategy” (Keck and Sikkink 1998; Sikkink 2005). Considering the proliferation of local and national human rights activism, Rodríguez-Garavito (2014) describes a human rights “ecosystem,” involving “multiple boomerang” strategies synchronized across different contexts—all pressing governments in similar directions and reinforcing global human rights (see also Kaldor 2003). Hafner-Burton and Tsutsui (2005) describe a “paradox of empty promises,” whereby governments ratify human rights treaties without much intention to transform human rights practices, but as global human rights have been strengthened, we’re seeing improvements in actual human rights practices. This paradox has generated, over time, a dynamic refered to as the “spiral model” and the “justice cascade” (Risse, Ropp and Sikkink 1999; Sikkink 2011). The Diffusion of Human Rights In a process I refer to as human rights globalization, social movements have worked to build a global culture of human rights, supported by a growing array of international treaties and institutions designed to promote and protect human rights and dignity. While states have been organized to reinforce territorial boundaries and competitive interests, people have always worked across those divisions to promote shared interests and cooperation. Although it is as old as the top-down, state-driven forms of globalization centered on international trade, military, and economic interests, human rights globalization has received far less attention from historians and scholars. This is largely because the proponents of human rights globalization have been groups typically denied a voice or any formal standing in most inter-state institutions and legal structures. In addition, human rights can pose a direct threat to the interests of elites promoting economic globalization and conventional power politics, and powerful groups have used their resources and influence over mass media and political institutions to marginalize movements and discredit their agendas. Nevertheless, in introducing the idea of human rights globalization, I aim to focus our attention on the long-term and global efforts of popular forces to articulate human rights norms and develop and build a system of treaties and organizational infrastructures designed to improve human rights protections. Through this world-historical lens, we can link historic efforts of anti-slavery activists and proponents of the early Geneva Conventions on the laws of war to today’s struggles against discriminatory policing and for protection of sexual minorities. A common thread is that, as discussed above, activists and movements have used the inter-state arena to gain leverage against powerful states, holding them accountable to global human rights norms and laws by using what Keck and Sikkink (1998) refer to as a “boomerang” strategy. Over time, social movements have contributed to a “spiral model” involving the elaboration of new international treaties and organizations designed to better define international expectations around human rights and to promote better monitoring and enforcement of those rights (Risse, Ropp and Sikkink 1999; Smith 1995). Thus, we cannot understand the global human rights architecture without attention to the contestation between human rights movements and states. The 1990s saw an explosion of new levels of engagement by civil society actors in global spaces, and the United Nations hosted a series of international conferences that encouraged networking and learning across diverse groups and issues (Friedman, Clark and Hochstetler 2005; Willetts 2011). These conferences helped support more multi-issue global organizing and inspired new thinking about intersections of different human rights, including the effects of racism and patriarchy and links between economic and social rights and political/civil rights. Global conferences also helped connect concerns of women, indigenous peoples, immigrants, and other marginalized groups with broader human rights discourse and strategy (Falcón 2016). The opportunities for activists to work together in global spaces enabled them to develop new thinking about how to build broader human rights movements and improve local implementation of global human rights norms and laws. Over time, many activists—particularly feminists—became frustrated by the failures of traditional approaches to building a human rights treaty system from the top down. States might be willing (with some prodding) to sign a convention, but they rarely took initiative to actually follow-through on their treaty obligations. Getting states to ratify treaties they signed and then to make requisite changes in national laws and practices required ongoing vigilance and pressure from activists and lawyers. Thus, human rights globalizers began to think more systematically about strategies for ensuring greater correspondence between global principles and local practices (Alvarez 2000, Desai 2009). At this same time, Nelson and Dorsey document what